Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2d 55
Unpublished Disposition
Shirley Mae Moody appeals the denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The District Court
agreed with a finding by the Administrative Law Judge that Plaintiff did not
have a severe impairment when her insured status ended on September 30,
1978, and affirmed the Secretary's denial of benefits. We find that the decision
below is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.
2
Plaintiff originally claimed in her application for benefits that she was disabled
as of August 15, 1979, because of an overactive thyroid. This later was
amended to August of 1978, one month before expiration of her insured status.
The Administrative Law Judge found that while Plaintiff was suffering from
nonsevere hyperthyroidism at that time, there is substantial evidence that it had
not become a severe impairment.
But the only medical evidence dealing with the period when Plaintiff was
insured was from Drs. Gupta and McNeer. In 1982, Dr. Gupta stated that he
"strongly believed" Plaintiff was suffering from hyperthyroidism before
February, 1979, and that she might have had symptoms for a year or two prior
to that time. Dr. McNeer stated that based on the history given by Plaintiff, he
believes that the symptoms of anxiety, similar to those of hyperthyroidism,
began in 1978 and were at least as severe at that time as they were in 1981
when he examined Plaintiff. (The Administrative Law Judge noted that even
Plaintiff's own history did not support a finding that the onset of severe mental
problems had occurred by September 30, 1978.)
The problem with these opinions is that they are not based on any objective
tests performed during the time period in question. Dr. Gupta had no medical
records from February, 1979, on which to base his opinion. Dr. McNeer had
only the history given by Plaintiff. A diagnosis made after a claimant's insured
status has expired "is entitled to significant weight if it is based on objective
medical criteria." Millner v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 243, 246 (4th Cir.1984). The
Secretary is correct in concluding that the opinions of these doctors are
speculative and not entitled to great weight.
AFFIRMED.